Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.

Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.

Sir... how can I be ignorant of what Science truly is... when I offer only the consensus of what the Eminent Scientists offer? That makes no sense.

Um... most peeps count Macro-Evolution as "speciation"... do you not do that? Do you not count it as Speciation at all? Because if you do, it HAS been observed, and I have presented you with the information at least twice.

If you wish to DENY Scientific Fact, I will not stop you.

But I think you are too "hell bent" on assuming Evolution as being Atheistic... as you have no real reason to deny facts unless it contradicts a literal Interpretation of... you know what.

Again, your comments only reveal a high level of ignorance on what true science really is.

Can I scientifically prove that there were humans present at my birth? No. Because that is outside the scope of empirical science. In order for it to be scientifically provable, it MUST be observable and repeatable. Macro-Evolution is neither of those, thus it is not true science.

Nate, i think I have the answer. As you recall, you and I discussed this topic some time ago. And although you and I both agree that evolution (on the macro) isn't true via science, i have recently come across some very, very enlightening, SCIENTIFIC footage that explains everything. Shon, watch closely.

Sir... how can I be ignorant of what Science truly is... when I offer only the consensus of what the Eminent Scientists offer? That makes no sense.

Do I believe that the "consensus of Eminent Scientists" are wrong? Yes.

All you are providing here is an Argument of Authority. In other words, since these men have degrees given to them by other men, then they MUST be right? That's a logical fallacy. They are just as capable of being wrong about events they were not alive to witness as anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shon8121

Um... most peeps count Macro-Evolution as "speciation"... do you not do that? Do you not count it as Speciation at all? Because if you do, it HAS been observed, and I have presented you with the information at least twice.

Oh really? Exactly which scientist has been alive for millions of years observing it? I'd like to meet that guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shon8121

If you wish to DENY Scientific Fact, I will not stop you.

I don't deny facts, I just deny speculation, guesswork and opinions masquerading as facts. There is a difference and if you were truly a "critical thinker" then you would know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shon8121

But I think you are too "hell bent" on assuming Evolution as being Atheistic... as you have no real reason to deny facts unless it contradicts a literal Interpretation of... you know what.

No, TexasRN had it right, it's just a discussion we've had so many other times before that I'm simply tired of drudging through the same nonsense over and over.

Nate, i think I have the answer. As you recall, you and I discussed this topic some time ago. And although you and I both agree that evolution (on the macro) isn't true via science, i have recently come across some very, very enlightening, SCIENTIFIC footage that explains everything. Shon, watch closely.

Nate, i think I have the answer. As you recall, you and I discussed this topic some time ago. And although you and I both agree that evolution (on the macro) isn't true via science, i have recently come across some very, very enlightening, SCIENTIFIC footage that explains everything. Shon, watch closely.

Do I believe that the "consensus of Eminent Scientists" are wrong? Yes.

All you are providing here is an Argument of Authority. In other words, since these men have degrees given to them by other men, then they MUST be right? That's a logical fallacy. They are just as capable of being wrong about events they were not alive to witness as anyone else.

Oh really? Exactly which scientist has been alive for millions of years observing it? I'd like to meet that guy.

I don't deny facts, I just deny speculation, guesswork and opinions masquerading as facts. There is a difference and if you were truly a "critical thinker" then you would know that.

No, TexasRN had it right, it's just a discussion we've had so many other times before that I'm simply tired of drudging through the same nonsense over and over.

Oh I like that. You disagree with the experts on the opinion. I'm glad I don't have to adhere to your opinion when it comes to sending someone into space or administering medicine to someone who's sick.
Oh! Awesome! You brought up the Logical Fallacy of an "Argument from Authority". That is completely correct not to just stand by for those arguments, however it is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

As I've said, when it comes to a crime scene that no one else was witness to... if we have the adequate epiracle evidence... then we can convict someone of murder if thats what the evidence suggests. Was someone witness to the Earth coming into existance? I mean, was a HUMAN witness to that?
No?
Then how do we know it happened? Haha. Come on dude.

I do know the difference... unfortunately... you appear to be blinded by bias because you only deny without offering some alternative explanation for the DNA evidences I have provided. The only explanation so far is Common Ancestry... so you have a lot of work to do. Good luck.

Oh I like that. You disagree with the experts on the opinion. I'm glad I don't have to adhere to your opinion when it comes to sending someone into space or administering medicine to someone who's sick.
Oh! Awesome! You brought up the Logical Fallacy of an "Argument from Authority". That is completely correct not to just stand by for those arguments, however it is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

As I've said, when it comes to a crime scene that no one else was witness to... if we have the adequate epiracle evidence... then we can convict someone of murder if thats what the evidence suggests. Was someone witness to the Earth coming into existance? I mean, was a HUMAN witness to that?
No?
Then how do we know it happened? Haha. Come on dude.

I do know the difference... unfortunately... you appear to be blinded by bias because you only deny without offering some alternative explanation for the DNA evidences I have provided. The only explanation so far is Common Ancestry... so you have a lot of work to do. Good luck.

Your DNA evidence is not direct proof of anything. It's just as much an indication of a Common Designer as it is for a common ancestor.

Is the existence of "residual DNA" in our bodies a fact? Well, from our current understanding of genetics, yes. However, in order for that fact to be proof of anything it must be interpreted and that interpretation depends greatly upon the worldview of the interpreter.

So, claiming that it is proof of Evolution is simply an opinion since none of us were alive to witness these events. Also, comparing it to a crime scene just tells me that you've watched too many episodes of CSI.

I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).

Your DNA evidence is not direct proof of anything. It's just as much an indication of a Common Designer as it is for a common ancestor.

Is the existence of "residual DNA" in our bodies a fact? Well, from our current understanding of genetics, yes. However, in order for that fact to be proof of anything it must be interpreted and that interpretation depends greatly upon the worldview of the interpreter.

So, claiming that it is proof of Evolution is simply an opinion since none of us were alive to witness these events. Also, comparing it to a crime scene just tells me that you've watched too many episodes of CSI.

As I've heard its an interesting show, I in fact do not watch CSI.

Common designer? Ok... I guess you didn't research the terms I gave you. But recall, this is NOT about Evolution verses the Literal Biblical Interpretation of Genesis. So lets stop acting like its Christianity verses Atheism.

Lets look at Endogenous Retroviruses first:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome. Most retroviruses (such as HIV-1) infect somatic cells, but some can also infect germline cells (cells that make eggs and sperm) and once they have done so and have been transmitted to the next generation, they are termed endogenous. Endogenous retroviruses can persist in the genome of their host for long periods. However, they are generally only infectious for a short time after integration as they acquire 'knockout' mutations during host DNA replication. There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago.

What does this mean? Endogenous Retroviruses insert randomly and are passed on from parent to child. For example, the Great Apes and Humans share a great many of these Endongeous Retroviruses that are inserted into random points in our DNA. They cannot insert randomly into the same line of DNA between all Species of Apes. Humans are included in that definition because we are indeed classified as Primates. I know you guys like talking about random chance and the astronomical number of possibilities and stuff... but this happening by chance would be beyond even your calculations.